About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 59 (some duplicates have been removed)
to it and i'm so incredibly grateful. >> it's a story about afghanistan but it's about one woman and one family in afghanistan so it really personalizes some of the challenges of that country. it's called the dressmakers of speed and tells the story of >> guest: it tells the story of a young woman who is supposed to be a teacher and ended up becoming an entrepreneur because there were so tough on so many people and she was left as the head of a family with five brothers and sisters counting on her and she became an entrepreneur and a dressmakers because there was nothing else women were to able to do. >> host: the interesting thing is she had never sewn before and became a successful dressmaker. >> guest: in the course of spending years going back and forth in afghanistan writing the book which i really think celebrates the unsung heroines whose stories are never told during the war. what i learned is that she realized pretty quickly on that she was actually sort of lousy seamstress but she was a really good businesswoman, and the seamstresses kept coming to her house, the young and girl
was going to afghanistan and the iraq and wanted to learn from these two men what was the relevance and is a possible i missing something? and kept asking questions about vietnam over and over again there were both amazed that he sat there and listen to in the first time going into his first national security council meeting, the first point* he makes to his people is "afghanistan on is not vietnam" why does he have to say that at the beginning embassy thinks there is a possibility of getting into another vietnam? and bruce who does books for the brookings press at that time was thinking through the firstenergy paper on of guinness and into bruce told less the ghost of vietnam walk the corridors of the white house every day. >> period explain to me how would is those close can affect different presidents in such extraordinarily different fashion. for example,, a jimmy carter trying to go into iran to rescue the hostages and up with a disaster on his hands. thing you have george h. to be bush who you just said send 500,000 troops into iraq and kuwait. theoretically the same lessons t
the afghanistan campaign. and there we find another find of the coffee out. it turns out -- caveat. it turns out some allies simply do not wish to make more where there were no shooting battles. some did it one to fight unless they have helicopters there were all of these rules than pretty soon we started to see the folks who wanted to send soldiers out to the field to have almost insulting checklist so this starts to develop in buy the way i am very careful when a make a statement about the caveat because i don't mean in any way to cut down on the bravery of the troops who are helping us americans out there. and the germans are not very willing to fight because of a historical precedent. it is very difficult for the germans to get over second world war history. please don't and feud any other motive into that. so now you have a copy ought with afghanistan where we're not prepared to use the allies because it is a different kind of four in technology have left them behind and estonia started to do something the russians didn't like then there was a cyberattack that plan and the estonian governme
that we're fighting today as in iraq, as in afghanistan. that in the end the resolution of that have of this will be a political matter and you say that's wrong. the first order of business and winning the war is to kill the enemy fighters. very forthright statement but one that does go against the grain and i'd ask you to look at afghanistan today and assess whether you think that approach of killing enemy fighters is going to lead us to something that's going to be called a military solution? >> yes i do, but i'm not saying the military solution is the only part of the solution that matters. there has to be that military solution. there has to be the imposition of the mind in the enemy that you're going to get killed if you go up against the americans. and i think that's what's happening in afghanistan now. there's something of this in the -- in iraq in the awakening of the sunnis to the west of the country, the idea that this was a tribal battle but the americans turned out to be the strongest tribe and that's something that's being defined by the others and, of course, that is in
side the something was not right. something was not right. then let's move on to afghanistan. there came a time when it -- by the way, if you have not read about the account of what a few hundred special forces and armed cia people did in a few weeks in afghanistan after a sit-in for 11th, it is really worth reading. basically destroyed the camps, just a few hundred of them, including some wonderful cavalry horse charges. it's quite a story. but, in 2003 in the united nations says we need to know start stabilizing afghanistan. native took over the afghanistan campaign. and there we find yet another fault line developing. vendettas of fall line whose so-called caveat. some european allies simply did not wish to make war. it wanted areas where there were no shootings. others didn't want to fight at night. some didn't want to fight unless they have helicopters and so on. there were all these roles. we started to see folks who wanted to send soldiers out into the field consulting checklists to see what soldiers you could send out and what you could not. so this starts to develop.
the corridor's hall of power. afghanistan, if we listen to president obama during the campaign and are said progressive need to be as tough and pragmatic about president obama as he is about us. he spoke about afghanistan as a good work and he needed to show because of the national security state gregoire politics till we find a way to end that the president remained captive to that. he had to show he was tough. i think what is going on is you have the ability on a number of core issues, one of them is afghanistan, corporate power is another, transpartisan majority who want a way out of afghanistan, believe corporate power is strong in this country and a president with leadership could seize that and find a way to build politics around that. thinking of president johnson, wars kill reform presidencies. and president obama, he is a reform, too ltd. but in these areas he is a reform president. it is imperative for citizens, progress of, citizens of conscience to organize more independently and find ways to drive those issues into the next election but more generally build coalitions that will
, that there is no military solution to conflicts we're fighting today as in iraq, as in afghanistan, that in the end the resolution of this will be a political matter. and you say that's wrong. the first order of business in winning a war is to kill the enemy fighters. very forthright statement, but one that does go against the grain. and i would ask you to look at afghanistan today and assess whether you think that approach of killing enemy fighters is going to lead us to something that could be called a military solution. >> guest: yes, i do but i'm not saying the military solution is the only part of the solution that matters. there has to be that military solution. there has to be the position of a mine any enemy that you're going to get killed if you go up against the americans. i think that's what's going on in afghanistan now. there was something in iraq in the awakening of the sunnis to the rest of the country, the idea that this is a tribal battle but the americans are not going to be the strongest try. i think that is something that is now being impressed upon the various elements, the tal
occupation, especially, afghanistan, especially, iraq and increasingly, the spillover of afghanistan into pakistan is causing a huge number of attacks there. and so what's been occurring is not just a large number of suicide attacks but a large number of anti-american-inspired suicide attacks. >> so besides the obvious policy of pulling out, is there another policy? >> absolutely. >> to prevent this. >> because pulling out, simply abandons our interests, ignores our interests. what this book suggests is a middle ground policy called offshore balancing. offshore balancing continues to pursue our core security interests and obligations in overseas regions but does so with over the horizon, naval power, intelligence assets, relies on economic assets and political tools and this is the core policy that we pursue as the united states for decades in major regions of the world, such as the middle east with great success, and we should return to this policy. >> can you give us specifics about how we should pursue the policy in the middle east. >> in the 1970s and '80s, the united states had
're fighting today as in iraq, as in afghanistan, that in the end the resolution of this will be a political matter, and you say that's wrong. the first order of business in winning a war is to kill the enemy fighters. greg forthright's statement, but none goes against the grain. i ask you to look at afghanistan today and assess whether that approach of killing enemy fighters is going to lead us to something that could be called a military solution. >> guest: yes, i do, but i'm not saying the military solution is the only part of the solution that matters, but there has to be that military solution. there has to be the imposition of the enemy that you're going to get killed if you go up against the americans. i think that's what is happening in afghanistan now. there's something of this in the iraq in the awakening of the sunnies to the rest of the country, the idea that this is a tribal battle, but the americans turned out to be the strongest tribe. i think to some degree that's not being enthrusted upon the various almosts and others there afghanistan, but, of course, that's in the middle
represented inside the halls corridor of power. afghanistan, you know, if we listened to president obama during the campaign, and i was one who said that,ing you know, progressives need to be tough and pragmatic about president obama as he is about us, he spoke about afghanistan as the good war, and he did that because he needed to show because of the national security state grip on our politics, until we find a way to end that, a president remains captive to a large extent. he had to show he was tough. i think now what's going on in this country is you have the ability, polls are snapshots, but on a number of core issues, afghanistan, corporate powers and others, there's majorities of people who want a way out of afghanistan, who believe corporate power is too strong in this country, and a president with leadership could seize that. it's not too late, and find a way to build politics around that. thinking of president johnson, wars kill, reform presidencies. president obama is a reform, maybe deluded, too limited, but in these areas, a reform president. it's imperative now for citizens,
represented inside the corridors, halls of power. afghanistan, you know, if we listen to present obama during the campaign, and i was one who said that progressives need to be as tough and pragmatic as president obama as he is about us, he spoke about afghanistan as the good work. and he did that because he needed to show because of the national security state grip on our politics, and to we find a way to end of that, the president remains captive to the to a large extent, he had to show he was tough. i think now what is going on in this country is you have the ability, polls are polls, but an issue is afghanistan, corporate power is never. you have trans-partisan majority people want to find a way out of afghanistan who believe corporate power is too strong in this country. and a president with leadership who could seize that. not too late. and find way to build a politics around that. thinking of president johnson, wars kill. reforms presents. when ever anyone things of all the flaws of president obama, he is a reform, may be deluded, too limited, but in these areas he is a reformed preside
conflict and iraq and afghanistan and people would not be in these combat roles to find themselves on the front line to support units that have females floor and traditional roles that people did not sign of to be in the infantry. >> traditionally we felt combat was infantry unit now we find it jessica lynn two was supply person on the convoy in pfizer self -- finds itself in a firefight that i want to go back to that but it use the someone like ruby where the bomber got the front line going into the cafeteria she was one of the people blown up. the reality is i would say that is the front line. >> guest: surprisingly women are off to it -- often under acknowledge because there are no combat roles for women. whether because of current policy or because women are suddenly finding they are put in that place but it there is a role for women in this capacity that the policy makers are useful such as being at translators are serving and civil affairs and help gain the indigenous women and children to communicate with them. >> host: when we go into afghanistan may go to the villages to w
current conflicts in iraq and afghanistan. people who traditionally wouldn't be in these kinds of combat roles are finding missiles very much on the frontline and that means support units that have females in them and or untraditional roles that people who didn't sign up to be in the infantry are finding themselves on this frontline. traditionally the combat was the infantry unit. now we find jessica lynch who was a supply person on a convoy and she finds herself in a firefight and she finds herself as the first p.o.w.. i want to go back to that and a little while because of course you were involved with some of that. you see someone like ruby who was in -- on the day that we -- the bomber got through the frontline and went into the cafeteria, to the mess hall and blew up the place. she was one of the people blown up so the reality is i would say that is the frontline. almost anyone is on the frontline now if you are in a place like iraq or afghanistan. >> guest: surprisingly women are often on a college for serving those rules because there were no combat roles for women and whether tha
have no front line in the current conflict in iraq and afghanistan, and people who traditionally wouldn't be in these schools are finding themselves very much on the front line and that means support units that have females and and traditional roles that people didn't sign up to be in the infantry are finding themselves on this front line. >> host: traditionally we felt combat with infantry use, so now we find this jessica lange, who was a supply person on a convoy, and she finds herself in a firefight, and she finds herself as a first p.o.w. which i want to go back to in a little while because you were involved in some of that. you see someone like ruby up in mosul on the day that the bomber got through the front line and went from the cafeteria and blew up the place and was one of the people blown out. the reality is i would say that is the front line almost any place is a front line if you were in a place like iraq or afghanistan. >> guest: yeah, and surprisingly, you know, women are often not acknowledge for serving those rules because there is no combat role for the women, and whet
's no military solutions to the conflicts we are fighting today as a in iraq and afghanistan, but in the end of the revolution of this will be a political matter and you say that's wrong. the first order of business and winning a war mecca's to kill the enemy fighters. a very forthright statement but one that does go against the grain, and i would ask you to forget afghanistan today and assess whether you think that approach of the enemy fighters is going to lead to something that can be called a military solution. >> guest: yes i do but i'm not saying the military solution is the only sort of resolution that matters. there has to be that a military solution. there has to be the position of the mind in the enemy you're going to get killed if you go up against the americans. there was something of this in iraq in the awakening to the rest of the country the idea this is a tribal battle but they turn out to be. i think it is now being impress upon the various elements of the taliban and others. but of course in the conflict of building, helping, developing projects going on designed to do one
in afghanistan and they started the ltte. the people would give the attacks in india as a counterweight to the military power. all those groups of operational connections now and the experts would be and are inclined to plan operations against the west both at home and abroad, so the question becomes then how vulnerable is the pakistani arsenal and how much would someone get a nuclear complex there's several ways. you could of the clandestine sale of materials which a.q., the father of the program for a number of years you could have a rogue officer take over the nuclear installation work you could have my scenario where the transit from the secured facilities to the front lines and the nuclear alert because that's where it's most vulnerable. so you have a combination of weapons, the country which is hostile, the security service which has ties to the jihadists and a lot of them have been indulged by the establishment and the security, and you have something that is a worry and i would suggest it was the great national security fears that we have. >> in your book you have osama bin lade
. they are concentrated, concentrated in the area of american occupation, especially afghanistan, especially iraq, and increasingly the spillover of afghanistan into pakistan is causing huge number of attacks there. and so what's been occurring is not just a large number of suicide attacks, but a large number of anti-american inspired suicide attacks. >> besides the obvious policy of pulling out is there another policy? >> absolutely. because pulling out simply abandons our interest, ignores our interest. with this book suggest is a middleground policy called offshore balancing. offshore balancing continues to pursue our core security interests and obligations in overseas regions, but does so with over the horizon air power, naval power, intelligence assets, relies on economic assets and political tools. and this is the core policy that we pursue as the united states is for decades the major regions of the world such as the middle east with great success. and we should return to this policy. >> can you give a specific about how we pursue this policy in the middle east? >> in the 1970s and '80s th
in our current conflicts in iraq and afghanistan. and people who traditionally wouldn't be in these kind of combat roles are finding themselves very much on the front line. and that means support units that have females in them and/or untraditional roles that, you know, people didn't sign up to be in the infantry are finding themselves on this front line. >> host: right. because traditionally we felt that combat were the infantry units. >> guest: exactly. >> host: so now we find jessica lynch who was a supply person on a convoy, and she finds herself in a fire fight, and she finds herself as the first p.o.w., which i want to go back to that in a little while because, of course, you were involved with some of that. you see someone like ruby who was up in in mow sulk on the day the bomber got through the front line and went into the cafeteria, into the mess hall and blew up the place. and she was one of the people blown up. the reality is i would say that's the front line. >> guest: absolutely. >> host: almost any place is the front line now if you're in iraq and afghanistan. >> guest: yea
about nation building, failed states, afghanistan, iraq, somalia, iraq, haiti, the foreign policy challenges that we've faced weapon have the illusion which i would call the problem of getting to denmark. denmark is in quotations. it's not a real country. it's the mythical place that have low corruption, democracy, stable government, good services delivered very efficiently and so forth. we have the vision of denmark in the back of our heads and go to a place like afghanistan. how are we going to get afghanistan to look like denmark? and it doesn't work very well. and part of the reason that i began to realize was that we don't understand how denmark got to be denmark. i had a visiting professorship, so i've been going. most danes have no idea how denmark got to be denmark. it struck me as a political scientist, this ought to be a book you can go to to say where did political institutions come from. i didn't see one. so i decided to write it. that's why we get the book that i've produced. so i also did not want to write a book on the origins of politics that told this traditional
to former current jihadists. they help to find and the taliban to fight the russians. back in afghanistan. they fought and started the people he did the mumbai attacks in india. as a counterweight to india military power. all those groups have operational connections to each other now. the experts believe that they would be, and are inclined to plan operations against the west, both at home and abroad. so the question becomes then how vulnerable is the pakistani arsenal? how might someone need a nuclear bomb? there's several ways. you could have a rogue officer come you have a clandestine sale of materials which a.q. khan, the father of the nuclear program of pakistan before a number of years. you have a rogue officer taking over nuclear installation, or you can have my scenario where a bomb in transit from its secure facility the front lines in a nuclear, storm because that's where it's most one of the. you're the combination of weapons, a country which is hostile, a security service which has ties to jihadists. jihadists have been indulged on the establishment military and security, and
will spend about $150 billion a year on the wars in iraq and afghanistan. nobody believes or hopes that will happen. it has not been requested by the president. no one intends to spend that money. in fact, the president's own budget assumes that instead of the $1.7 trillion that would be over the next decade, that instead we will spend about $600 billion. that's what the president's budget says. that's what people assume. this means that senator reid's proposal to take credit for cutting an additional $1.1 trillion that's not going to be spent anyway is not going to be viewed as a credible proposal. why? because it's money that's not planning to be spent. it's a little like a family saying let's assume we're going to take a vacation we're never nefer going to take and it's going to cost $10,000, and them saying we saved $10,000 on our basketball. i wish it weren't so. i wish the $1.1 trillion was credible spending reductions we could rely on but "the washington post," "the wall street journal," many other observers have looked at this and said frankly it's not meaning a meaningful
with troops serving in afghanistan yesterday. the soldiers admiral mullen talked with weren't asked about how a troop drawdown would affect them. they asked if they would get paid if the republicans forced the united states government to stop paying its bills. the region that has been rocked by violence and plagued by sue coyed bombers this month, they wondered how they would take care of the families if the checks stopped coming next month. let me read a little bit of that press story that came out yesterday. quote -- "half a world away from the capitol -- capitol hill deadlock -- the economy and debt crisis are weighing heavily on the u.s. troops in afghanistan. the top question among them is one a top u.s. military officer wouldn't answer: will we get paid?" end of quote. admiral mullen went on to say, "i don't know the teens that question, but either way, those soldiers" he said, "all of us must continue to work every day." mr. president, this is really unacceptable. a country as rich and powerful as ours, men and women with bombs going off around them, shouldn't worry about whether this
every day to go to class. >> host: much has been recovered in the future of afghanistan. as we close out here, what is the one take away that you want people to have about the country's based on your experience in this book? >> guest: what most people want and afghanistan is what most people want in this country, the ability to send their kids to school, the ability to feed their families, and the ability to make sure that the next generation has a better shot the future that's peaceful and that is what i hear over and over and i could because the coverage shapes so much of what we know about afghanistan a lot of people won't ever meet those people and i hope they get to know some of these unsung heroines to be posed to you had such a success are you already thinking and not the second book? >> guest: ibm because it is sort of mission driven if you've gotten people to pay attention to the women's stories and not so much soft when i think the work the women do is very hard. i want to go to liberia and i met this really compelling entrepreneur who has a very dramatic story and is now runni
it illegal for women to attend to school in afghanistan. while this particular policy was discarded in 2001, similar deplorable circumstances still exist in afghanistan and around the world. the limitations and implications of existing education systems are far-reaching. yet there are concrete steps that can correct the damaging nature of existing education systems or the lack thereof. any institutions with international jurisdiction can and must institute global education programs including early childhood and vocational programs. early childhood education such aspiration head start provides comprehensive health, education and parent involvement to low-incomed families in the united states. vocational education is a further means of empowerment. by powering the technical skills and training to make individuals valuable members of the work force, such educational programs can also be recognized for their economic value. early childhood education as well as vocational training and educational opportunities are all viable in empowering programs that must be instituted in a global context. edu
had "rambo" in afghanistan, you have a war in the afghanistan and a lot of the way we describe it is about the rambos in afghanistan. obviously, gordon gekko becomes bernie madoff and all the ripoff artist on wall street. the evil guy from "tron," i'm only have joke here, kind of is mark zuckerberg. [laughter] the a-team, the idea of the private contractor you have to hire to fix your problems for you is kind of, in some ways, blackwater or at least our reliance on private contractors and how we think about private contractors. and the evil guy, cobra, in "g.i. joe," was a very clear allusion to islamic fundamentalist terrorism. what i argue in the book is that these images, these stories became powerful in the 1990 and -- 1980s and enduring because of certain structural changes that were happening in our economy. and i told nathan by e-mail that i was going to do this. i stole and used one of the cover graphics of nathan's book to sort of highlight how this happened. but an argument in this book is that things change in the 1980s in a way that made the storylines and the icono
with men's health magazine, iraq, afghanistan many times and i run into the msg's, the legacy of the msg's guarding consulates and imbaa sighs all around the world, and frankly, i'm not worried about kabul and baghdad. i'm been to chad and darfur and tashkent and liberia, and these kids that are over there, and they are kids. they are kids today like they were kids back then. these kids over there that are kind of guarding, not kind of, guarding the embassies, no matter how you feel, and i don't want to know about our military ventures overseas. they are the best trained marines, the most dedicated marines, and just like the marines, the heroic marines, i think, they will never say it, but just like the heroic marines from saigon in 1975, that legacy continues in the msg, the marine security guard units, and i don't know how you feel about overseas ventures, but it's something we can all be proud of, and i am. >> hoorah. >> you know i told you about the guy who lived up the street, steve, he took that bayonet and wouldn't leave, and you know, says it's nothing. you can give him a hand, h
is hard-core. back i will go to afghanistan and in bed himself while i'm embedded in vegas. he's in afghanistan. good for him. who else? i read it all. everything i can get my hands on. i loved the hunger games trilogy which is on. it was really good. >> do you see yourself, are you more accountable now with screenwriters as opposed to other authors? what is your community? >> i have a lot of writing france, but overall i don't know that many screenwriters because i don't live in l.a. i don't have a lot of close friends who are writers but i have a couple, matthew pearl is a good friend of mine in austin. joe fender has a book out. a wonderful book on he is great. a few other local writers. i don't, you know, we don't sit around and turtlenecks and drink coffee. it's not that scene. [laughter] >> would've turned to come upon the time, as we say then we'll be doing a book signing after this and there are other events obviously with late nights at the da. i would ask you a couple more questions to rout out and we would like the audience, if you have a question to please come on d
, you know, i read sebastian younger. he will go to afghanistan and embed himself. while i'm embedded in vegas, he's in afghanistan. good for him. what else? i read it all that comes out. everything. i love "the hunger games." which is odd. it was really good. >> right. do you see yourself more comfortable now as opposed to other authors? >> my friends aren't -- i have a lot of writing friends. overall, you know, i don't know that many screen writers. i don't live in l.a. were they are all there. yeah, you know, i -- i don't have a lot of close friends who are writers. i have a couple. guy named matthew pearl, he's a good friend of mine. a guy named joe who has a book out. wonderful gook. he's great. a few other local writers. but yeah, there's not -- you know, i don't -- you know, we don't sit around in turtle necks and drink coffee. not that speed. yeah. but -- yeah. >> we're starting to come up on the time. as we say, ben is going to be doing a book signing after this. there are other events, obviously with late nights. i want to ask you just a couple more questions. what we would
be in afghanistan? >> i think this is a debate we can actually have because i think you can make an argument for a. at the same time, it is a kind of academic question.sçç >> your great grandfather would say we have to have these mechanisms. >> we do. >> don't go playing fdr army. >> -- fdr on me. >> i think that one of the g things to remember about these brothers and one of the reasonsg why i think looking at this m story is really valuable, they were really working out how to answer some of these questions. there was an urgency because they were new questions.@n they felt them. these are questions that we just don't feel. n you know, the kind of tension between your responsibilities as individuals, your responsibility as a citizen, ethics versus morality. these are all sound academic terms.a when he came down to it is likely going to die for your country? are you going -- is not as unequal.@n we had a huge structural problem in the country.@ i think our poverty rate among children was around 22%, second to mexico. there is some really big things going on and there are not@ñ question tha
the economy in america which is a sad thing because we are killing people in afghanistan everyday and in iraq and there's these offers propping up. what i'm saying through the book where i would approach it is we need to change ourselves. we need to change the way we see the government and we need to be involved at least 90 minutes every day in the policy to make a difference because nothing else is when to matter except us being involved. it doesn't matter who's elected or in power but the people in the united states are involved every day in what they think is best for themselves and their fellow citizens, then we will have a better country. >> host: this is the book we are talking dhaka, "twelve steps toward political
be in afghanistan and? >> that's what i said, i think this is a debate that we can actually have because i think you can make and argue for it. at the same time, i -- it is a kind of academic question. i just don't think it's going to happen. >> your great grandfather would say we have to have these academic questions. don't go playing fdr on me. >> a damn sight better,úg c something. yeah, you know, i think that one of the things to remember about these brothers and one the reasons why g i think looking at their stores is really valuable is they were really working out how to answer some of these questions, and there was an urgency because there were new0ñ questions. they felt them. and these are questions that we just don't feel. you know, the kind of tension between your responsibilities as individuals, your responsibilit as a citizen, ethics versus morality. these all sound academic terms, but when he came down to it it's like are you going to die for your country? are you going to -- choose a@ side in such a way that it's not unequal, not as unjust. we had huge structural problems in this c
. ou guest: >>t guest: well, one of thef emerging threat hubs.li it may become afghanistan on c steroids. theis nearly a failed state right now. the president was seriously injured in a mortar attack by the opposition.ion. this is only a unified country over the past 20 years.rsome ar has a history of breaking apart, if you will. what we have seen in the last 45 months is that al qaeda and anher extremists have been a will to develop a firmer hold of a southern part of the country.l that is important. i wish we had a map. fir you can see the proximity.on already a failed state. we also have a big hub.soma it is pretty well understood a that we are starting to see a migration. whenever words you want to use. the reason that happens is theym understand that with the power vacuum there is opportunity for them. the great thing about a failed state is that it is hard to operate.s no it is a little bit of a double-edged sword. i believe that human is at the center. this one final point. the, the central figures, is really unlike any other that we see.e ader e call it the trifecta. the
for women to attend school in afghanistan. of this particular policy was discarded in 2001, similar deplorable circumstances still exists in afghanistan and around the world. the limitations and implications of existing education systems are far reaching, yet they are concrete steps that can be taken to work toward combating the cyclical and damaging nature of existing education systems or lack thereof. any institution international jurisdiction can and must answer to global education programs including early childhood in the case of programs. early so that education such as operation head start provides comprehensive health and education, and parent involvement to low-income families. providing technical skills and training to make individual valuable members of the workforce. sets educational programs can also be recognized for their economic dahlia. early sell their education as well as vocational training and educational opportunities are of viable and empowerment programs that must be instituted in a global context. education is a powerful thing and can be central and working t
territories or in afghanistan. and there's the mother apology hattie. he wrote the first book on global jihad. what the names of global jihad ways. and now it's also kind of interesting to me because there have been many, many books about 10 minutes writing writings and biographies and everything. but none of them mentioned margaret marcus amerian jameel. none of them talk about him as a father or it has been for a brother or son. marion's letters were all about his household and the way it was run. there seemed to be of benefit instead of looking at this man is this powerful political leader, which is how the academic scholars have written about him was to look at the politics of his household, which were much more complicated and unexpected than you would as soon, given his writings. i mean, miriam would be upset because his wife didn't always coming in now, wasn't always an instant purdah. she would say, why didn't you wear your veil to meet her brother and not quite she said, doesn't your husband get upset at that? she said you know, my husband is such a saint. he is so much patience for
believes we would have been in iraq past 2,004 or we would still be in afghanistan >> that's what i just said. this is a debate we can actually have because i think it's, you know, you can make an argument, at the same time i -- it's the kind of academic question. i don't feel it's going to happen. >> but your great-grandfather would say we have to have these. islamic academic arguments, g maybe. >> don't go pleading fdr on me. >> yeah, you know, one of the things to remember about the brothers and looking at the story is valuable is they were really working out how to answer some of these questions and there was an urgency because the new questions and they felt them and these are questions we just don't feel the kind of tension between the responsibilities of individual, responsibility as a citizen, efiks versus morality, the sound academic terms but@ when it came down to it's like are you going to die for your country, are you going to change society in such a way that it's not as equal or unjust we have huge structural problems in thiñ country. our property right is like 22%,k seco
having, who had brain injuries that were coming back from iraq and, um, afghanistan that had brain injuries and doing creative writing. and it hasn't really taken off. i've been, i've worked on it, but it just didn't happen. but there's something about the writing process which is, as i've said before, i think almost a form of magic. but it, you form synapses because you, the creative process, the whole notion is something that happens that can't be -- it's like a mystery too, and it's also a form of power. but it, you create pathways in the brain that wouldn't have been there before, that suddenly something comes to you because you have words in this a line, or you have words or concepts together. and it changes how you think. and so for me i think that doing writing during that time, it was probably not good writing, but at least it was part of the process of healing for me. and that it may not have happened, i may not have done as well as i did if i hadn't been writing. >> host: another e-mail, this from a woman, jackie st. joan, is her name. linda was my mentor at the universit
the war's we have got accustomed to with vietnam, iraq, afghanistan is they are fraught mostly and there are very few among fed dead and wounded who were sensa and daughters of ceos, senators, members of congress or anything like that. it was the exact opposite and avert -- first world war the death toll fell proportionally higher on the upper class. the main reason for that was it was customary four sons of the upper class and aristocracy to have military careers. one major reason for this is that armies are not only there to fight wars against other countries but to maintain order at home. the 19th century was a tumultuous time in europe so was yearly 20th century and european armies were used to break strikes with the british army put down rebellions in ireland and so therefore the officer was generally reserved for those of the upper class is meeting when the country's went to war in 1914 come in the upper class is suffer the enormous toll. for example,, for the 30 graduates of the 10 killed in a single day, the first day of the battle in 1916 come the men who graduated fro
in afghanistan. it was an ill-conceived scheme. so on that resistance existed in congress and the american politics was basically correct. all the people who oppose the war were smart and president bush and his lieutenants were wrong. i have to be very clear here i do not think president bush and his lieutenants life for selfish reasons. they lied and they took the united states to the war and iraq because they thought that was in the american national interest. they thought they were doing good for america but the fact is they didn't. they didn't pursue a smart policy, and the naysayers have the stronger hand to play and it's just too bad they didn't carry it. estimate 1976 jimmy carter's campaign i will never lie to you was one of the lines he used to read did he live up to that? >> he told of least one why i know of and that is when it became clear that the iran rescue mission was going to be exposed she had his press secretary lie to the newsman who smelled this operation was about to take place president carter and jody powell did the right thing. i'm sure none of them felt good about
on a firing line somewhere in afghanistan realizing today could be their last day on this earth so america can live to see another day. that's how serious the consequences are. so, mr. president, i would suggest that instead of being paralyzed by our analysis of where we differ, let's become analysis of where we find common ground and we do on not raising the debt ceiling. we know we should raise it. we know we can find up to $2.8 trillion, and hopefully more, in cuts in the deficit and spending over time. we know for a fact we have to extend the debt ceiling to some point in time. and if it's passed -- past the presidential election of 2012, let's ensure that each body in regular order can vote on a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. which leaves us with one difference and that difference is what is the enforcement mechanism on the $1.8 trillion cut that the joint committee, equally divided, is supposed to come on? i submit we can find the common ground to find the silver bullet that causes that to happen. and i would encourage all of us to forget now where we differ, to recogniz
hunted down, you have native indians in brazil. even in afghanistan they call the areas where they're doing all the bombing the tribal areas. i want you to speak to the fact that indigenous people around the world are being if under attack. er attack. and is there some way we can get this out into the press so they can understand that this should be stopped immediately? >> guest: well, what you're saying was true. >> guest: what you are saying is true. i was just in norway and the performance with a nsga woman in india under attack by the burmese. i think what it is, there's always the land hunger and indigenous people are vulnerable. there are resources that others want. for instance, in i think it is coaster rica, covered the land and animals and oil. so what we think about is the oil in the gulf. we don't realize that is happening in other regions as well. it should be published. it should be in papers. it is very difficult to have that information. one book that i read was by hawkins. i am sure you remember him from long ago. or maybe not. the same thing is going on -- in a way
sebastian yonder is a phenomenal reuter and he will go to afghanistan and so good for him. i read it all. i love the hundred games trilogy which is odd that i would like that but it's really good. >> are you more comfortable now with screenwriters as opposed to other authors? >> my friends -- i have a lot of writing friends but overall, i don't know of that many because i don't live in l.a. and they are all there. but yeah, i don't have a lot of close friends who are writers, i have a couple, matthew pearl who rode the dante club. a wonderful book come he is great. a few other local writers, but you know, i don't -- we don't sit around and drink coffee in turtlenecks. [laughter] but yeah. >> we are starting to come up on the time. he will be doing a book signing immediately after and there's other evens obviously with late nights at dhaka dma. what we would really like the audience to do is if you have a question please come down to one of the standing microphones at the front and we will take you in order for 15 minutes or so and then wrap up the evening at that point. if you have some que
's afghanistan farm, and that's where they practiced how to possibly assassinate him without collateral damage. this is before 9/11, but at the end of the experiment, the state department got involved, and there was lots of legalities about assassinating someone, so they decided not to do it. >> how could area 51 secrets be kept from american presidents? >> that's a very tricky and uncomfortable question certainly for this journalist, but in the very beginning of the book i explain to you that something that i found really pretty shocking when i learned it in researching this book that the atomic energy commission actually has a system of secret keeping that runs parallel to the president's system of secret keeping which is the national security system. that is not the way the constitution was written, but it is what the atomic energy act of 1946 allowed, so when the charter was written right after world war ii for the atomic energy commission, they created the system of secret keeping which the slang for it is called born classified. scholars who looked into this secret keeping system say tha
'm not a warmonger i don't want another war. we are already tied up in iraq, afghanistan and for some reason libya. but the only way to stop iran is with clear military force. sanctions are great but at the end of the day they are not going to work. at the end of the day iranian regime is motivated by, again, an ideology. it's a messianic ideology. they truly believe and they will shape policy around this, the iranian government truly believe that they can punish in the end times. >> host: this would be the 12th? >> guest: that goes by various names. he is the islamist must live. this all sounds crazy i know but they really believe this. the likes of ahmadinejad. they believe that if they strike out against israel, if they acquire nuclear weapons, if there's a ton of great global chaos and a people which are seeing right now with this arab spring, they believe that can hasten the return of the islamist messiah who believed lead them to victory over israel and the west. so acquiring nuclear weapons is part of that divine plan. nothing will deter them or dissuade them from this goal. they believe it
the jihads are organized and sent off to fight either in the northwest territories or in afghanistan, so there's sort of the mother of jihad. he wrote sort of the first book on global jihad. he was the first to articulate what the aims of global jihad was, and that was also interesting to me because there have been many, many books about him and his writings and biographies, but none of them, none of them mentioned margaret markus and mary. none of them talk about him as a father or husband or brother or a son, and the letters were all about his household and the way it was run and in that there seems to be a benefit instead of looking at this man as a powerful islamic political leader was to look at the politics of his household which were much more complicated and unexpected than you would assume, you know, given his writings, you know, she would be upset because his wife wasn't always in strict -- why didn't you, you know, wear your, you know, vail when you went out to meet your brother-in-law. she said, oh, you know, doesn't your husband get upset at that? she said, oh, you know, my
benefits to veterans or paychecks for the men and women wearing our country's uniform in afghanistan and iraq. i want to be clear. a default will injure america's reputation throughout the world. it will weaken faith in the world's most respected financial power, leaving our country's financial leadership in doubt. simply put, defaulting on the debt could trigger an economic collapse of historic proportion. that's why i plead with our republican colleagues, join us without delay in adopting majority leader reid's plan. senator reid's plan will provide certainty for middle-class americans and to the markets because it will provide stability, that's what we need right now through 2013. mr. president, this plan isn't perfect. in fact, including me, believe it should include revenues. it doesn't but that's why it's called a compromise. and after we adopt this plan and step back from the brink, we need to work on a balanced approach to get our country back on sound economic footing, and it means asking the wealthiest among to us pay their fair share. i was one of those who was very fortun
have had their fill of catastrophe and near catastrophe. recently in afghanistan, admiral mullen, chairman of our joint chiefs, was asked by troops if they'll be paid next month. his answer was, "i honestly can't answer that question." admiral mullen had to tell the troops, "i'd like to give you a better answer than that right now. i just honestly don't know." mr. president, it is inconceivable to me that we will leave our troops in limbo by driving our country over the cliff of default. our nation's economic life is in peril. i don't remember ever in the 32 years that i've been here is our nation more in need of deliberation, statesmanship and compromise. "the new york times" columnist david brooks, who is a conservative columnist, recently wrote that too many republicans seem to have joined a movement -- his word -- in which -- quote -- "the members do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter what the terms." close quote. i hope that some of our republican colleagues will prove mr. brooks wrong on this matter because of its huge significance. the time for ignoring hard tru
of iraq and afghanistan. those costs are coming down. the president had projected they would come down to $50 billion soon and would stay at that the rest of the year, which would mean $1 trillion less spending. remember, we're going to increase debt by $9 trillion to $13 trillion, but $1 trillion would have been the war. by reducing the war costs down, you save a trillion dollars. but that was already in the books. that's already estimated. and so how did they do it? well, they came in and they put in a bill that mandated it to come down because, oddly enough, the congressional budget office doesn't assume the war costs will come down. the congressional budget office assumes that it will stay up and we'll spend this trillion dollars more on the war, when there's no intent to do that. president bush wouldn't have spent that much money. and, therefore, they put it in the legislation and require it to come down to these numbers, and all of a sudden c.b.o. scores a trillion dollars extra savings. well, any change in spending projections or reality at all, speaker boehner didn't count his
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 59 (some duplicates have been removed)